I watched the better part of it a week or so ago. It was a very elaborate story based on evolutionary ideology, and dragon myths. To be honest, if I didn't know better, I would have thought that the wonderful just-so-stories about the dragons came from our evolutionist defenders of the faith that frequent this web site.... There really was no difference......

But their saying they have found a fully intact dragon that lived in a cave. From what I could see, for they only showed a glimpse of it, it was frozen. For dial up users, you wait until flash is completely loaded, then refresh the page and it should play at regular speed, regardless of connection speed, because it should play from your browser cache.

Reading some of the commentary, the show in question had a small disclaimer early on revealing it to be a hoax. Apparently this disclaimer is easily missed and many people have been annoyed by the apparent seriousness of the documentary. It seems to have been played like the Orson Wells re-enactment on USA radio H.G. Wells Martian invasion "War of the Worlds"

So, is animal planet into making hoaxs? And then take three years to do it? Looks like they went to a lot of trouble, or maybe they just did not want to get into any arguements with scientists would be bent on proving it wrong.

So, is animal planet into making hoaxs? And then take three years to do it? Looks like they went to a lot of trouble, or maybe they just did not want to get into any arguements with scientists would be bent on proving it wrong.

The title of the show was "Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real".

I caught a few minutes of it.

I wouldn't call it a hoax; maybe a "fictional documentary" (if there can be such a thing) about finding a (computer-animated) dragon.

So, would you say they are lying about finding what is shown in those pictures? Seems alot of trouble to do something like that. Guess it must have to do with realitivism, where you create your own reality and decide whether it's real or not.

So, would you say they are lying about finding what is shown in those pictures? Seems alot of trouble to do something like that. Guess it must have to do with realitivism, where you create your own reality and decide whether it's real or not.

"Working with production crews from around the world, and collaborating with top scientists, artists and animators, the creators of Animal Planet's new special bring these mythical animals to life in Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real"

It was a complete fantatasy. The point is how well they mixed the evolutionay dogma about how the dragon's developed.

It sounded just any other evolutionary story, the only difference being it was known to be false, where the other stories are portrayed as scientific truh, but with little if any more evidence(at least in my opinion).

So, is animal planet into making hoaxs? And then take three years to do it? Looks like they went to a lot of trouble, or maybe they just did not want to get into any arguements with scientists would be bent on proving it wrong.

Or they knew that this kind of fictional documentary (mockumentary?) would get them some serious ratings

It was a complete fantatasy. The point is how well they mixed the evolutionay dogma about how the dragon's developed.

It sounded just any other evolutionary story, the only difference being it was known to be false, where the other stories are portrayed as scientific truh, but with little if any more evidence(at least in my opinion).

Terry

Except for the

Lack of an explanation of where the most basic features of the dragons (IIRC their being sextapods, and being able to breathe fire) came from

Lack of any evidence of any of the dragons in modern times

Lack of fossils of any of the made up ancestors

Hmmm

Aren't those things all called EVIDENCE

And don't they exist in many evolutionary transitions? (you can claim the fossils are misinterpreted but they still exist)

Lack of an explanation of where the most basic features of the dragons (IIRC their being sextapods, and being able to breathe fire) came from

Lack of any evidence of any of the dragons in modern times

Lack of fossils of any of the made up ancestorsHmmmAren't those things all called EVIDENCE

And don't they exist in many evolutionary transitions? (you can claim the fossils are misinterpreted but they still exist)

The lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence. It is the difference between "generally accepted" (theories for which there is a preponderance of positive evidence but the lack of a counterexample) and "proven" (theories for which any counterexample has been shown to not exist). Consider doing division in Roman numerals. Before the acceptance of Arabic numerals, there was no single algorithm by which division could be accomplished. Try it yourself. Divide MMMDCCXXXVII (3,737) by CXXXVII (37) using only Roman numerals. Then use the same algorithm to divide XXII (22) by VII (7). Does this mean it is not possible to divide 22 by 7?The lack of evidence (ie, the answer) does not provide conclusive proof that dividing 22 by 7 can or cannot be accomplished.